Then there are flat deck landings that could be improved by reducing Carrier Approach Speed and, as mentioned before, increasing bringback for VLs thus reducing requirement for SRVL perhaps and also reducing SRVL speeds. Who knows....?

If the A variant enjoys a X% combat radius increase, the impact on B could be bigger i.e X+%. The main complaint against the B has always been the shorter combat radius.

If the AETP goal of 30% increase in combat radius is achieved on the A, on official combat radius of 590nm, this would translate into 177nm increase in combat radius, some of which are already being seen in growth option 1. If its 177nm, there is no reason why this isn't the same for the B ie 450+177 = 627nm since the takeoff weight is the same.

VTO can already be done pre-enhancement, VTO performance will also improve much more with the thrust enhancements.

weasel1962 wrote:If the A variant enjoys a X% combat radius increase, the impact on B could be bigger i.e X+%. The main complaint against the B has always been the shorter combat radius.

If the AETP goal of 30% increase in combat radius is achieved on the A, on official combat radius of 590nm, this would translate into 177nm increase in combat radius, some of which are already being seen in growth option 1. If its 177nm, there is no reason why this isn't the same for the B ie 450+177 = 627nm since the takeoff weight is the same.

VTO can already be done pre-enhancement, VTO performance will also improve much more with the thrust enhancements.

It's not a 30-35% increase over 590nm, though. It's a 30-35% over the current actual combat radius (or 201 to 235nm increase in strike range, and 228 to 266nm increase in A2A range.) The B's demonstrated range is over 500nm.

wrightwing wrote:It's not a 30-35% increase over 590nm, though. It's a 30-35% over the current actual combat radius (or 201 to 235nm increase in strike range, and 228 to 266nm increase in A2A range.) The B's demonstrated range is over 500nm.

Just thinking out loud, if its 200-266nm increase for A, it should be at least 150-200nm for B at same fuel efficiency (B carrying 75% of the fuel of an A -13.5k vs 18k lbs). B should reach above 600nm combat radius.

"US Air Force officials have taken the first concrete step towards defining a new class of adaptive jet engines to power the next generation of combat aircraft that come after the Lockheed Martin F-35.

A $437 million contract modification awarded to GE Aviation on 29 June also draws the first sharp line between an ongoing effort to develop a 45,000lb-thrust adaptive engine replacement for the F-35 fleet[/b] and a follow-on series of engines designed for the still-undefined aircraft that will replace the Lockheed F-22.

Pratt & Whitney, the powerplant supplier for the F-35 and F-22, also is expected to receive a similarly sized contract modification to develop a competing engine design for a future air superiority aircraft.

Both GE and P&W are already working on a related but separate development effort called the Adaptive Engine Transition Programme (AETP). The AETP was described when it was announced in 2016 as an effort to develop and test adaptive engines for a sixth-generation fighter propulsion system, with the possibility of re-engining the F-35 with a more powerful and fuel efficient alternative to the P&W F135.

But the new award clarifies that the competing AETP engines — embodied by GE’s XA100 and P&W’s XA101 demonstrators — are focused on a potential bid to re-engine the F-35 in the mid-2020s....

...In an interview with FlightGlobal, Dan McCormick, GE’s general manager for the Advanced Combat Engine Programme, agrees that the AETP demonstrators are “F-35 design-centric”....

...GE plans to deliver the XA100 demonstrator’s first engine to test next year under the AETP programme, McCormick says. In addition to adaptive bypass airflow, the XA100 will feature ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) in the rotating high pressure turbine blades, allowing GE to use higher temperatures or reduce cooling loads in the engine design...."

Pratt & Whitney is refining its proposed upgrade path for the F135 Joint Strike Fighter engine to include increased power and thermal management system (PTMS) capability following feedback on its initially proposed upgrade package from the F-35 Joint Program Office.

Additional power and thermal management capability will enable the use of directed energy weapons and other advanced offensive and defensive systems and, if approved, would feature in an upgrade package called Growth Option 2.0 (GO2). Pratt & Whitney, which would roll PTMS into a suite of compressor and turbine enhancements originally proposed in the first upgrade package, G01, says the complete upgrade could be available within four years of getting the official go-ahead.

Growth Option 1.0, which was floated with the JPO in 2017, offered 5% fuel reductions and as much as 10% higher thrust. Offered as a cost-neutral upgrade, it was always meant to form part of a longer-term, two-stage improvement road map for the F-35 engine under plans first unveiled by the manufacturer in 2015. However, with the move to combine GO1 and 2 into a more complete enhancement package, Pratt is tailoring the revised proposal to closer match the F-35 upgrade road map recently outlined under the C2D2 continuous improvement strategy.

GO1 builds on core technologies evaluated from 2013 onward using the modified F135 test engine XTE68/LF under the U.S. Navy-sponsored fuel-burn reduction (FBR) program. It also incorporates design improvements developed under the U.S. Air Force-supported component and engine structural assessment research (Caesar), which focused on the F119 engine for the F-22, the predecessor to the F135 powerplant.

Though focused on integrating enhanced thermal management, GO2 will leverage more of the adaptive engine technology features in development at Pratt through air force and navy-supported initiatives. These largely stem from the air force-led adaptive engine technology demonstration (AETD), as well as the follow-on adaptive engine transfer program (AETP), which is targeting development of the XA101 variable-cycle engine for sixth-generation fighters.

The chief focus for these new AETD, AETP and XA101 engine cycles is the addition of a third airstream to provide additional either added combat power or range, depending on the phase of the mission. However, the “GO” upgrade packages can take advantage of the broader variable-cycle approach, says Matthew Bromberg, president of Pratt & Whitney Military Engines. “‘Adaptive’ refers to many other elements of the engine as well, not just the third stream. Yes, there is a third stream, but we are also looking at adaptive elements in controls and components inside the engine such as an adaptive turbine.

“We have widened the aperture and are looking at adaptive elements across the engine,” he adds. “As these mature we will look at what we can do with the technology in an existing engine, and that’s the concept in GO1. And GO2 is exactly the same thing. It just adds the PTMS capability that we missed last year. We didn’t have that in terms of the requirements when we packaged GO1, and that was the feedback we got from the customer. With a PTMS solution, this can meet all the C2/D2 requirements, and I think that’s compelling.”

Designed to be a drop-in replacement for the current engine, the GO2 package will not require other system upgrades outside of the propulsion system. “There’s more we can do with Lockheed Martin and other suppliers if we go outside the engine, but this is all within the engine,” says Bromberg. Although providing few specifics, he adds, “It is leveraging all the bleed systems, the generation systems.”

Pratt meanwhile continues tests of the new technology future fighter engine core that will provide the basis for the XA101. Although the company declines to offer any details of the work, it follows the successful completion of tests of a three-stream fan system on a modified F135 under the AETD program. Results from the core tests will feed into the AETP effort that forms the basis for the XA101 engine.

GREAT NEWS! GE Wins $437M Adaptive Cycle Engine Contract.....GE Aviation is powering into Farnborough International Airshow 2018 in the wake of winning a nearly half-billion-dollar contract follow-on from the U.S. Air Force to continue development work on its adaptive cycle engines for potential air superiority applications. The $437 million contract was awarded by the USAF Life Cycle Management Center.

“GE is excited to continue the maturation of adaptive cycle engines; it will enable revolutionary combat capability of future platforms,” said Dan McCormick, general manager of GE’s Advanced Combat Engine Program. “Three-stream adaptive cycle engines bring a generational change to what propulsion can provide as compared to legacy engines or potential upgrades to legacy engines.”

Video of GE's pioneering work in Ceramic Matrix Composite tech with application in it's adaptive engine. Lighter weight components operation at higher temps requiring less cooling air that can be diverted to other purposes...

[quote="Corsair1963"]GREAT NEWS! GE Wins $437M Adaptive Cycle Engine Contract.....GE Aviation is powering into Farnborough International Airshow 2018 in the wake of winning a nearly half-billion-dollar contract follow-on from the U.S. Air Force to continue development work on its adaptive cycle engines for potential air superiority applications. The $437 million contract was awarded by the USAF Life Cycle Management Center.

“GE is excited to continue the maturation of adaptive cycle engines; it will enable revolutionary combat capability of future platforms,” said Dan McCormick, general manager of GE’s Advanced Combat Engine Program. “Three-stream adaptive cycle engines bring a generational change to what propulsion can provide as compared to legacy engines or potential upgrades to legacy engines.”

ACEGE.jpg

Oh my...

It was bad enough for PAK FA engineers that their "2nd stage engine" just flew this year, but this has to really have them swimming in their vodka.

It feels like Dejavu, Pratt wins the contract to build engines for the new fighter, then GE wins the contract for the engine upgrade.

I know that the idea is to award the better proposed engine, but the DOD also knows that if they keep giving contracts to just one supplier because they are simply better, then the other one will pull out and soon, you're left with just one supplier.

So is this how they balance the scales to make sure competition remains.